Most young men are single - most young women are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Women live in fear of rape and murder every day.

The fear becomes very well-founded in a war zone.

My father used to say that the Vietnam war was a huge motivator for men to stay in college. It only worked for so long until they started drafting college educated and in college men, but until then, it worked for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

I do think a lot of women have gotten very, very comfortable because we have not faced any real danger for a very, very long time.

All of these feminist ideals go out of the window when stuff really hits the fan.

It's not just women. A lot of us take a whole lot for granted. If a big war comes along, we'll dream of the days when we thought that depression, loneliness, and fear of being thought of as a creep were real problems.

We are animals, just like other animals, and the " diseases of domestication" are just as real and harmful as for other animals.

I don't know if you're trying to suggest that civilization has made people lesser than their pre-civilized ancestors, but if so, it's just not the case. But Hobbes was correct when he observed that the condition of humans in a state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

DP. You are really pleased by that thought, aren't you? Oh, such a shame how hard they will pay.

This is what women sense when they pull away from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

DP. You are really pleased by that thought, aren't you? Oh, such a shame how hard they will pay.

This is what women sense when they pull away from you.

Yep. And a lot of these men who barely keep violence from bubbling to the surface also want women who are smoke shows. They don't want to date average overweight Larla from down the street.

[Anonymous]

You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

It's sheer petulance. They know that their grandfathers could marry whenever they wanted to, treat their wives like slaves, and have other women on the side, no matter how unappealing they were. Life doesn't work that way anymore and they're mad. If they put half as much energy into bettering themselves that they do into complaining, they'd have no problem. And they'd be with women who actually WANT them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want us to take care of their lazy a***, like we did for centuries. We are obviously responsible for all the bad things that men do, just because they don't get laid enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

Women are not here to submit to men and absorb their violence. I'll take my chances with mass shootings.

[Anonymous]

I’m too horny to not be in a relationship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men (and women) have more than two options. These types of reductive arguments are unhelpful.

So name one. And it can't be "make women slaves again".

Someone upthread suggested delayed school entry for boys. That's one possibility. Encourage boys to socialize more. Haven't seen any others.

We have, as a society, focused on girls for the past couple decades. Maybe we could focus on boys for the next couple. Or just focus on children.

Give me a break with your “focused on girls.” Do you mean trying to level the playing field and call men out for sexual abuse? Please give specific examples of how girls have been favored. Here are a few facts about women in 2020s. This is supposedly a “woman’s world?”

In 2021, nearly 20 percent of girls said they had been victims of violent sexual behavior. More than one in 10 had been raped, they said. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-sexual-attacks-teen-girls-increased-lockdown-rcna70782

Women Are Nearly Half of U.S. Workforce but Only 27% of STEM Workers
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html

American women lag substantially behind men in terms of their representation in leadership positions.

In the legal profession, women are 45 percent of associates but only 22.7 percent of partners and 19 percent of equity partners.8
In medicine, they represent 40 percent of all physicians and surgeons9 but only 16 percent of permanent medical school deans.10
In academia, they have earned the majority of doctorates for eight consecutive years11 but are only 32 percent of full professors and 30 percent of college presidents.12
In the financial services industry, they constitute 61 percent of accountants and auditors, 53 percent of financial managers, and 37 percent of financial analysts.13 But they are only 12.5 percent of chief financial officers in Fortune 500 companies.14 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/womens-leadership-gap-2/

Women in Congress As of January 3, 2023, there are 124 women in the U.S. House of Representatives (not including four female non-voting delegates), making women 28.6% of the total.

In 2022, for every $1 that men make, women earn $0.82 cents. This is the same as last year.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106041

Women occupy only 10 percent of top management positions in S&P 1500 companies. They hold just 19 percent of S&P 1500 board seats. They are just 26.5 percent of executive and senior officials and managers, 11 percent of top earners, and 4.8 percent of CEOs in S&P 500 companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Yes, let’s blame women not the proliferation of guns (no gun control) or big pharma. That should solve these issues.

A problem can have multiple causes.

Yeah and women ain’t one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Yes, let’s blame women not the proliferation of guns (no gun control) or big pharma. That should solve these issues.

There have always been a lot of guns in this country. Now there are a lot of mass shootings, but there didn't used to be.

Okay. Let’s blame terrible parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Are you appropriating the struggles of generations of women for yourself? What did you do?